Vincibly vs Invincibly Ignorant Conscience - Essay Example

A Vincibly Ignorant Conscience and an Invincibly Ignorant Conscience Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course: Date: A Vincibly Ignorant Conscience and an Invincibly Ignorant Conscience The arguments on the difference between a vincibly ignorant conscience and an invincibly ignorant conscience have become multifaceted. As a matter of fact, studies such as Keenan (1999) have noted that the connectedness between the two terms and Christianity should stretch beyond merely assuming that conscience ‘can go astray through ignorance’ (see Gaudium et. spes, n.16). While researching on issues such as What Does Right and Wrong Have to Do with Good and Bad scholars such as Keenan (1999) made an attempt to provide an understanding on the difference between the two terms. From the standpoint of his research Keenan relates ignorance with ways in which Christianity should try to discern what is right by associating ignorance with sin. From the one hand, Keenan argues that ignorance will be termed as vincible if Christians will be able to dispel it by the use of their moral diligence. The difference in the two terms according to the author is that Christians require diligence requisite that commensurate with the significance or the importance of the affair they are dealing with, and with the capacity of the agent. Researching on Catholic Conscience-Foundation and Formation Smith (1991) had pointed out what Keenan argues about. Smith conceptualizes the difference between the two terms by reminding Christians to consider the differences and similarities in Thomas Aquinas ideologies of speculative and practical reason and ways in which his concepts relate to Christians’ understanding and application of different levels of moral norms in getting what is right. The views that have been advocated by Keenan (1999) have been assessed differently by contemporary theologies and scholars who have attempted to connect the two terms to modern Christianity. Basing on the basic teaching from Hierarchical Church Teaching (2004) and basic principles as outlined in the study on Formation of a Christian Conscience, the general consensus is that a vincibly ignorant conscience and an invincibly ignorant conscience differ on their applicability. As already noted, ignorance is considered to be vincible if Christians will be able to dispel it by the use of their moral diligence in getting what is right. Relating this definition within the context of Christians, being able to discern what is right, a vincibly ignorant Christian will likely remain under the judgment of God and at the same time, invincibly ignorant Christian may get salvation. Applying this concept to modern Christianity, discerning what is right is about applying moral teaching in decision making. These facts may be applicable to Christians outside of the Catholic Church. Smith (1991) addresses this issue at length while researching on Catholic Conscience-Foundation and Formation. According to his findings Christians have the obligation of embracing baptism and Christ while unwittingly rejecting the Church. In such case, it will be only God who will be able to judge Christians on whether all Orthodox and Protestants are invincibly ignorant. But what needs to be understood from Smith (1991) presents is that ignorance of the true religion remains to be more descriptive of non-believers or non-Christians. The question that can be posed in the final step of accepting Hierarchical Church Teaching (2004) and Smith (1991) teachings on the difference between a vincibly ignorant conscience and an invincibly ignorant conscience is whether a person considered to be invincibly ignorant regarding the faith will still be able to go to hell due to the fact that they committed mortal sins that have been known by natural law including rape or murder. However, drawing the case and argument as presented by Keenan (1999) no sane individual is invincibly ignorant of these issues thus allowing Christina to draw the line of what is right and wrong. The pre-Vatican II teachings and thinking on the difference between a vincibly ignorant conscience and an invincibly ignorant conscience has been captured succinctly in the book, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Finnegan 1979). Accordingly, Finnegan (1979) reports that the book looks at the difference between the two terms by trying to reconcile what Thomas Aquinas meant when he argued that certain moral norms may not hold in every situation a Christian finds himself or herself in. Instead, they can be applicable in most cases. Secondly, the book attempts to draw attention of the Catholics so that while they apply what Thomas considers to be “in most cases” (ut in pluribus) they consider the fact that Christians can be faced with a belief in an objective moral order when discerning what is right. The best approach in understanding the connectedness between The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and Thomas Aquinas teachings has been presented by Pippard (1988). According to the author, the two terms help Christians make correct decisions. For instance, when Christians are faced with special circumstances, practically, in the case of invincible ignorance then the actual membership of the Church will be replaced by the desire for the same. However, this case need not be explicitly present but can be included in the moral readiness faithfully in the fulfillment of the God’s will (Delhaye 1968). The principles for a Catholic morality as presented in the research concluded by O’Connell (1978) noted the distinct differences between a vincibly ignorant conscience and an invincibly ignorant conscience. One concern that O’Connell argues about is that he attempts to relocate self-determination from the free choices which Christians make daily to an alleged act of basic freedom at the core of the Christian existence. At the core of his argument, O’Connell believes that Christian acts should be regarded as material events that come and go. The point that the author tries to bring with regard to a vincibly ignorant conscience and an invincibly ignorant conscience is that it can be possible for a Christian to freely choose to kill or commit adultery and not commit mortal sin. In the actual sense, the difference between a vincibly ignorant conscience and an invincibly ignorant conscience stretches beyond what O’Connell (1978) sees. Christian should consider the fact that ignorance still remains to be invincible if Christians are not able to remove it through application of reasonable diligence when they are determining or discerning the truth (MacNamara 1987). Differently, ignorance is considered vincible within the argument of O’Connell (1978) if Christians will be able to remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Connecting this difference with what O’Connell (1978) considers being mortal sin; Christians require reasonable diligence to discern what the concept of mortal sin is right and in this case. There is need to have reasonable diligence so that a conscientious Christian would display when seeking what is right or correct answer to issues especially those that are raised by O’Connell (1978). Studies have put this point rightly adding that unlike vincible ignorance, invincible ignorance will help Christians to remove their culpability for a material sinful act, whether one of commission or omission (Bullivant 2011). Again, vincible ignorance will likely affect Christian’s culpability for their quest for what is right or sinful act, but this will depend on the kind of vincibility. Studies have concentrated on two issues in understanding the difference between the two terms. Firstly, studies are concerned about Church’s Magisterium especially informing one’s conscience and as a detailed guide when it comes to concrete ethical decisions so that Christian may use their knowledge to discern the truth (Bullivant 2011). Secondly, when it comes to Christianity, vincible and invincible ignorance studies attempt to establish how one can understand and apply the imperative to always follow their conscience (Finnegan 1976). Starting with Church’s Magisterium, vincible and invincible ignorance reminds Christians that any theologian claiming that s/he needs to ignore the Magisterium (within this context we define Magisterium as the teaching of the office of the Church that consist of the Bishops and Pope) in order to find the truth will be considered to be strangely perverse since any Christian should consider teaching of the Magisterium as the prime or God-given way of finding what is right. Influenced or deliberate ignorance can raise the guilt for a sin, particularly when it displays resistance of heart whereby an individual would obligate the sin regardless of any law that might exist about it. Such an attitude shows disrespect for moral law and so raises guilt. It is normal for one to be invincibly unaware that an act is needed by natural law. Christians have a special way in which they apply the principles of vincible and invincible ignorance in discerning what is right. Borrowing from Thomas Aquinas, failure to respect the Christian faith goes against the value of faith. This study has borrowed from different scholarly principles including the position held by Thomas Aquinas in understanding the link between vincible and invincible ignorance and how Christians can discerning what is right. It is worth noting that what constitute right remains to be resolute. But the extent to which Christians can apply to their own conduct or what is right is generally considered to be a matter of conscience. References “Hierarchical Church Teaching” in Conscience: Reading in Moral Theology no.14. Editor Charles E. Curran, New York: Paulist Press, 2004, pp. 65-81. Bullivant, Stephen. "Sine Culpa? Vatican II and Inculpable Ignorance." Theological Studies 72.1 (2011): 70-86. Delhaye, Philllippe. The Christian Conscience. N.Y.: Desclee Company, 1968. Finnegan, Robert Emmett. "Eve and" Vincible Ignorance" in Genesis B." Texas Studies in Literature and Language 18.2 (1976): 329-339. Keenan, James, S.J. “What Does Right and Wrong Have to Do with Good and Bad?” in Commandments of Compassion. Franklin, Wisconsin: Sheed & Ward, 1999, pp. 77-81. MacNamara, V. The Truth in Love. Dublin: Gill & MacMillan, 1987. O’Connell, T. Principles for a Catholic Morality. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978. O’Neil, Kevin and Peter Black. The Essential Moral Handbook. Missouri: Liguori Press, 2006, pp 60-79. Pippard, A. Brian. "The invincible ignorance of science." Contemporary Physics 29.4 (1988): 393-405. Smith, Russell, Editor. Catholic Conscience-Foundation and Formation. Baintree: The Pope John Centre, 1991. Read More